I was at the subcommittee hearing last Wednesday when "Emmanuel Goldstein" testified, and I took notes. It is true that two committee members (about half of the total who were present) focused on 2600 as being a handbook for crime. Don Delaney, who was also on the panel, giving good evidence about the extent and organization of phone fraud in New York City, noted that the First Amendment had already been abridged to protect kids from pornography, and proposed a law that would make it a crime to sell security-related information to juveniles. Subcommittee Chairman Markey told a long rambling story about people going down Maple St. rattling the doorknobs and why that was a bad thing. He compared 2600 to people who rattle the doorknobs and then post on the bulletin board downtown, "The door to 123 Maple St. is unlocked". Rep. Fields said to "Emmanuel" that it was "frightening that someone like you thinks there's a protected right to violate someone's privacy." The ironic thing is that another panelist, John J. Haugh, heads a consulting firm that publishes details about similar topics. He's the editor and principal author of a two volume reference work, _Toll Fraud and Telabuse_, published by his company in early 1992. He's also the editor of a national newsletter, _Telecom & Network Security Review_, also published by his company, with subscribers in 49 states and 18 countries. Mr. Haugh did not get hectored by the panel. But Mr. Haugh charges $170/year for six issues of his newsletter, and wore a suit to the hearing. When the same information is published at 2600 prices, packaged for more adventurous people, it is "troubling". My opinion is that when the privacy and security of society depends on those doors being locked, then yes, we ought to have whole squads of Boy Scouts, cops, hackers, and ordinary citizens rattling those doorknobs hourly and daily. And when we find one open, we should let the world know, because the privacy and security of the world depends on it. This applies to information like, "if you tune an ordinary radio to these frequencies, you can hear everyone's phone calls." If the info is suppressed, the problem will never be fixed, because not enough public pressure will be brought to bear on those responsible for fixing it. John Gilmore PS: The first half of the hearing was on encryption and Clipper, and I am pleased to say that the subcommittee took the *right* stance on that issue -- that the Clipper proposal was trouble and that fundamental rights, upon which our society is based, were at stake.